Starting with this section, John explains why he is reminding them to walk in the commandments of God (verse 6).
(7) For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
John had just reminded them—begged them, actually—to love one another and to walk in the commandments of Jesus Christ. But why? Why was it so important for John to remind Christians about this? The word for in this verse means because. What follows in this verse is the specific reason why they needed to be reminded—because false teachers are here!
Deceivers have existed for thousands of years. Jacob deceived Isaac into thinking he was Esau in order to steal the firstborn’s blessing (Genesis 27:19-29). Simon the sorcerer deceived the Samaritans into thinking he was a truly powerful person from God (Acts 8:9-11). But the deceivers John is discussing are not simply those who misrepresent themselves. These deceivers could cause someone to lose their soul.
There were many of these deceivers going about during the time of John the apostle. False teachers were prevalent then, and they are prevalent today as well. We would all do well to realize not everyone speaks the truth. We should be like the noble Bereans who searched the Scriptures daily to make sure what they were being told matched up with God’s word (Acts 17:11).
Are entered into the world
This is spoken of in the past tense. It has already happened. This is not a warning of something yet future, but it is a warning of a very present danger. These deceivers were out in the world already deceiving people. The time to be aware of false teachers is now.
Who do not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
These liars (deceivers) did not confess Jesus actually came in the flesh. There are differing views as to exactly what this means.
Most believe this is a reference to the Gnostics, a group of false teachers who were prominent in the second century. The Gnostics promoted (among other things) the idea Jesus just appeared to come in the flesh, but was actually just a spirit who appeared to be flesh. Why would John warn Christians about these false teachers? If their doctrine was true, then there really wasn’t a death on the cross, nor a resurrection. And, as Paul said, if there is no resurrection, then we are still lost in our sins (I Corinthians 15:17-18). This doctrine denies the very thing upon which the Christians’ salvation rests: the death of Christ on our behalf.
The Gnostics were not prominent until the 2nd century, though the seeds of their doctrines would have been sown much earlier. However, it is difficult to believe full-blown Gnosticism was already a present problem in 67-69 AD when this book was written (see introduction for a brief discussion of the date of 2 John).
It is more likely the Jews, the constant thorn in the side of first century Christians, had begun going out and telling people Jesus was a made-up character. The apostle Peter had to deal with this same issue. He stated “we do not follow cunningly devised fables [made up stories]” (2 Peter 1:16). Instead, Peter says he was an eyewitness to Jesus Christ and His transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-17). Peter, in the mid-60s AD, had to counteract false teachers who were teaching the story of Jesus was a cleverly designed fable. This accusation said Jesus did not come in the flesh. It is worth noting John begins his first epistle with a defense of the historical truth of Jesus’ physical coming (1 John 1:1-4). If Jesus never existed, then our sins are not forgiven. Truly this is a damnable heresy (2 Peter 2:1).
This is a deceiver
If it wasn’t clear with John’s first statement about many deceivers, he clarifies it here. The people who teach Jesus didn’t come in the flesh are liars. Literally, this verse says, “This one is the deceiver [or, the deceiving one].”
This is…an antichrist
If it wasn’t clear to Christians that these liars, these false teachers should be avoided, John uses the word “antichrist.” “Antichrist” is not a name of a person, nor is it a title. It is a description. “Anti” means against, or opposed to something. “The antichrist” is literally translated as “the one opposed to Christ.” In the entire Bible, this word appears in just three other verses:
Little children, it is the last time [literally: final hour]: and as you have heard that antichrist shall come, even now there are many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (1 John 2:18)
Who is a liar but her that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)
And every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come; and even now already it is in the world. (1 John 4:3)
When you read these verses—the only times in the whole Bible the word “antichrist” appears—it should become obvious John was talking about something taking place when he wrote. After all, the fact these “antichrists” (plural) are on the scene was proof the final hour (the destruction of Jerusalem—see Matthew 24:24) was near. The ones who say Jesus didn’t come in the flesh are deceiving and opposed to Christ. To accept their doctrines is to also be opposed to Christ. To be opposed to Christ means eternal destruction (Hebrews 10:26-31, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9).
Within the last 150 years, many doctrines have cropped up about a future person described as “the Antichrist” who will come to power and deceive many shortly before Jesus comes again and sets up an earthly kingdom. This verse proves all those theories false.
Remember the following:
These deceivers had already (past tense) come into the world and began their work of deceiving in the first century. John is not speaking of some future character (especially not one 2,000 years away from his own time).
There were many deceivers, not just one.
These deceivers who existed in the first century are the antichrist.
Any doctrine that denies the antichrist was a first century reality is a false doctrine which should be flatly rejected.
Some well-meaning Christians have said the phrase “the antichrist” never appears in the Bible. While this is true in the King James Version, it is not true in the original Greek. This verse in Second John does indeed say “the antichrist,” or literally “the one opposed to Christ.”
(8) Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
Look to yourselves
A recurring theme in the Scriptures is the need for constant self-evaluation. Paul says “Examine yourself, whether you are in the faith” (II Corinthians 13:5). Here, John tells Christians there is an important need to look within. Look to yourselves to make sure you have not bought into the false doctrine peddled about by the deceivers and ones opposed to Christ (see notes on previous verse). John expresses the need to examine ourselves, and then gives two reasons why we should do it.
That we don’t lose the things which we have accomplished.
The Christian life is not an easy one (Luke 9:62). It takes work (James 2:24). But the work builds up treasure in heaven (Matthew 6:20, 19:21). If someone were to spend his life obeying Christ’s will, and building up treasure, but then fell prey to these false teachings stating Jesus never came in the flesh, those treasures would be lost. Frequently, people will claim “once saved, always saved.” John says those spiritual things which we worked so hard for can be lost. Who will you believe? An inspired apostle or an uninspired denominational “pastor”?
Receive a full reward.
By continuing to examine ourselves frequently to make sure we have not fallen prey to false teachers, we keep a hold of the treasures we have laid up in heaven. Eternal life is the full reward being spoken of. Jesus phrased it this way, “be faithful unto death, and I will give you a crown of life” (Revelation 2:10).
Denominational teachers frequently say “Not of works! Not of works!” But the inspired writers say justification (being made right in God’s sight) is by works, and not by faith only (James 2:24). Here, John uses the word reward. A reward is something given based on the actions of someone else. The Greek word means payment, wages, or reward. Truly, the inspired apostle John didn’t believe or teach the false doctrine of “faith-only salvation,” or “once-saved, always saved.” For John spoke of a wonderful payment awaiting faithful Christians. The Scriptures teach we will be judged eternally based on our works we do while on earth (Revelation 20:12-13).
(9) Whosoever transgresses, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ, has not God. He that abides in the doctrine of Christ, he has both the Father and the Son.
The word transgresses means to go beyond something. The idea here is of a set boundary. Everything inside the boundary we’ll call “the doctrine of Christ.” Once you go outside the boundary, you have transgressed, or gone outside the borders of Christ’s kingdom. In short, you’ve left Christ behind. John clarifies the thought a bit further by saying transgressing is “not abiding” in the doctrine of Christ.
And does not abide in the doctrine of Christ
This means he does not stay in the doctrine of Christ. This is talking about someone who was saved, who became a Christian, who was in the church. This person, once saved, has left the doctrine of Christ. No one can forcibly take you out of God’s hand (Romans 8:34-39), but you have the freedom to leave on your own.
…the doctrine of Christ
Some have argued over this short little phrase. Is this the doctrine taught by Christ, or is it the doctrine about Christ? In order to satisfactorily answer this question, let’s consider the context. (1) John mentions antichrist, (2) describes the antichrist as anyone who doesn’t confess Christ came in the flesh, (3) then discusses the ones who don’t abide in the doctrine of Christ. The other times antichrist is mentioned, the same points are brought up (see 1 John 2 and 4).
So, there is no doubt the context is talking about the doctrine Jesus Christ came in the flesh. It is the doctrine about Christ.
But what are the logical implications? If we accept Jesus is the Christ, and He really did come in the flesh, that requires we follow His teachings (John has already made this clear in verse 6).
So, is this the doctrine about Christ, or the doctrine taught by Christ? The answer is both. You can’t have one without the other. We have to remain in the teaching about Christ as well as Christ’s teaching.
Over the next several days, I will be posting sections of my unpublished commentary on Second John, titled “The Truth and the Liars,” for your consideration. Today’s installment is the introduction to the letter.
If you find any mistakes, clunky wording, or areas needing clarifying, please feel free to email me, and let me know so I can take care of those issues before issuing a final version of it.
The letter we call II John has an older man writing to encourage people to continue walking in the truth so they can be prepared to recognize and avoid false teachers. The apostle John is usually referred to as the apostle of love, but in this book John’s focus is on knowing and living the truth. This should come as no real surprise, because Jesus said, “if you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). Knowing and living the truth will protect us from false doctrine that exists in the world.
The apostle John (the son of Zebedee, and brother of the apostle James) has long been acknowledged as the writer of this and four other New Testament books (The Gospel of John, I John, III John, and Revelation). Most biblical language experts agree the same person wrote all the books bearing John’s name because of the striking similarity in style and substance. Therefore, we should conclude whoever wrote one of those books/letters wrote them all. In the Gospel of John, the writer clearly states he was a disciple of Jesus Christ (John 21:20-24). This disciple was also present at the Last Supper (John 13:23), which was only attended by Jesus and his twelve apostles (Matthew 26:19-20). I John 1:1-3 also makes it clear the writer claimed to have been a close disciple of Jesus. Unless the writer of these books is a liar, we can know he was one of the twelve apostles.
In the book of Revelation, the writer gives his name as “John” (Revelation 1:1, 9). Only one of the apostles was named “John,” eliminating anyone else from consideration. The apostle John is the writer of this book.
There are those who, based on a fragment of a 4th century quotation of a 2nd century writing, claim all the books which bear John’s name were written by another disciple of Jesus named John who they call “John the Presbyter.” The above evidence including the writer of John being present at the Last Supper should eliminate this idea from consideration.
To Whom was it Written?
There is debate as to who the “elect lady” mentioned in II John 1 is. While this will be discussed in more detail in the comments section on that verse, we shall here give a brief overview of the main candidates for the “elect lady.”
Some believe the “elect lady” is a literal woman. Among this group, some believe it is Mary, the mother of Jesus, who is being addressed. Others believe it is some woman unknown to us, but possibly named Kyria (the Greek word translated “lady”). Still others hold it is some woman John held in high esteem, but whose identity we will never know.
Others believe the “elect lady” is speaking of the bride of Christ, the church. Among this group, some believe it was written to the entire church as a whole. Others believe it was written to a specific congregation of the Lord’s church.
Regardless of the original recipient(s) of the letter, all can agree it was written to Christians, and as such has value and application for all Christians today.
The Date of Writing
It has become very popular in the last 50+ years to say all of John’s writings were done in the last ten years of the first century. However, the evidence says otherwise.
Historically speaking, the apostle John is said to have been so infirmed near the end of his life he had to be carried everywhere and could hardly make out any more than the words, “love one another.” It is hard to picture this man then giving the statement about Diotrephes, “Therefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he does…” (III John 10). If John expected to be able to travel and stand up to the bully of the congregation, it must have been before he became so old he couldn’t even walk. Also, in Revelation, John is told, “You must prophecy again before many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings” (Revelation 10:11). It is hard to imagine an almost 100-year-old John who could barely speak or move being able to go around prophesying to different nations. Historically and biblically speaking, the “late date” theory doesn’t make much sense.
There is almost universal agreement that all the books bearing John’s name were written around the same time period, whenever that may be. So, if we can deduce the date of one of the books, then we have a very good idea when the other books were written.
One writer said it is amazing the single most climactic event in the area was never referred to as a past event in Scriptures. He is referring to the absolute destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It is prophesied by Jesus in the gospel accounts, but none of the writers ever say, “and it happened just like he said it would.” Because of that fact, A.T. Robertson, a self-proclaimed liberal, said he had no choice but to date the entire New Testament prior to AD 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed (A.T. Robinson, Re-Dating the New Testament).
In I John, the apostle says, “Little children, it is the last time [literally “it is the final hour”]: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now there are many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time [final hour]” (I John 2:18). John basically tells the people, “You heard when the antichrist came, the last time would be here. I’m telling you now there are many antichrists, so you know that time is now!” An inspired apostle is telling them the last time is then a present reality. Since we still exist some 1900+ years later, we must ask, “What is he talking about?”
Jesus, in Matthew 24, describes the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and says one of the signs the end of Jerusalem is near is “false Christs” shall arise (Matthew 24:23-25). A false Christ says “I am the Christ,” as though he was Jesus, returning. So, when John said antichrists were around when he wrote, therefore they could know it was the last time, he was talking about the same thing Jesus mentioned: Jerusalem is about to be destroyed. In II John, the antichrists are mentioned again as a present reality (II John 7). If we put all of these things together, we must come to the conclusion I John and II John were both written close to the time before the destruction of Jerusalem, probably between 65-69 AD.
This matches with the Old Testament foretelling the end of prophecy (that is, inspiration and miracles) would take place sometime between the death of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem (see Zechariah 12:10-14:2, especially 13:2).
 For a fuller examination of this topic, see the author’s The Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts, Appendix: The End of Miracles.
Revelation is impossible to understand, and anyone who says otherwise is lying to you.
Of course, there’s also the people who say this one:
The events in Revelation are happening now! Or at the very least, they’re about to happen. The end is near!
People have been trying to use the book of Revelation to predict the end of time for years. And every time, they are proven wrong. Why is that? Because Revelation isn’t a book about things that are happening today, tomorrow, or sometime in the future.
Revelation is about things which have already happened.
Oh, don’t take my word for it. Read Revelation 1:1 and 3. Then read chapter 22, verses 6 and 10. Twice at the beginning of the book, and twice at the end of the book, God told the readers, these things are close. They’re about to happen!
Do you want to know what the book of Revelation is really about? Do you want to see the proof, straight from the Bible? Do you want to know why the stuff in Revelation was so important to the Christians who first read it?
Literally thousands of hours (seriously) of work have gone into this 500+ page book, so that you can know what Revelation is talking about.
This interview is from the latest issue of The Quarterly, available here. To subscribe, visit CobbPublishing.com/Quarterly
Please share this interview on social media.
[John DeBerry has served as Tennessee State Representative for 26 years, and has been a gospel preacher for over 50. He lives in Memphis.]
What I’ve got in mind to talk about are three non-controversial topics: politics, religion, and race.
[Laughter] Okay, it don’t get more uncontroversial than that!
Where did you first hear the gospel?
I’ve heard the gospel all my life. My dad was a gospel preacher. I was born into the church twice. I was born into the church as a child in my parents’ family. My great-grandparents, brother and sister Enos and Mary Garrett were Christians, my grandparents, Starling and Susie Hall, and my mother and father, John and Pearl DeBerry were Christians, so the church was just part of my life from my first waking moment.
Being a preacher and a Christian was just part of my normal desires in life. I wanted to preach the gospel ever since I was in first grade. So I was introduced to the gospel as a child in my parents’ house. There was reading of Scripture in the evening before we went to bed. The prayer at the table. The talks my mother and father gave us about what’s right and wrong, and what was moral and not moral. That’s my introduction to Christianity.
When did you start preaching?
I actually started preaching in 1967 in the 10th grade. I gave my first formal sermon in the 9th grade, but I had been preparing to preach the majority of my life.
I tell folks all the time I had a little church in one of the big closets in my momma’s house when I was growing up. My grandfather built me a little pulpit, and I say my little church broke up because my brothers and sisters and cousins said I preached too long [laughter]. So that was my first church.
But I started preaching, I think my first sermon was at the Lincoln Street church of Christ in Alamo, TN, 1967. And I’ve been in the pulpit almost every Sunday since then.
Civil Rights and Protests
What do you remember about your personal interaction with the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s?
I remember my first interaction with the Civil Rights Movement, again, from my family. Civil rights, as the way it was taught to me, with the leadership of my family, was really a continuation of what we taught as Christians. My father did not believe in violence. He marched in Memphis with Dr. King. He went to the speech that was made in Washington DC in 1963. My family, I understand, raised money for him to go; he was going to be the representative of the entire family. So civil rights was the right to have the constitutional rights that my father, as a Korean War veteran, had fought for and had stood for. We were always taught to give respect so that we receive respect. We were never taught that anything was free. We were never taught that everybody had an entitlement. We were taught that we had to work, but that the country had to be fair, to give us a chance to work, a chance to achieve, to learn, to educate ourselves, and to be successful. That’s what our parents taught us—they never taught us that anything was free, that there was a free lunch, that we were supposed to wait on anyone to take care of us. We were always taught that we had a right to the opportunity to work and achieve and find success. So civil rights was not a “We’re kicking the door down because of something that we want,” Civil rights was peaceful protest, saying that it was time for the country to change. It was time for us to grow up, to mature, to realize that we have various cultures and ethnicities, and give everybody a reasonable and equal chance. That’s what it was about.
Do you think, had it been violent, the changes would have happened? Or do you think it was the “peaceful” part that made people willing to listen?
Well, peaceful protest changed the world. I did an interview earlier, and I said that America is a child of controversy. We began in controversy. America began in revolution. So revolution, change, protest is part of our DNA as Americans. We change things that are wrong—we fix things that are wrong. That’s why our constitution is so malleable. There were a lot of things that weren’t necessarily up to speed and right in America. We had our flaws, our failures, our faults, but America’s faith always carried its problems. We had the Constitution, the greatest document written by man, because it was based on the greatest document ever written—the Word of God. Therefore, because we were Christians, peaceful protest was the only thing we knew; the only thing we would accept; the only thing we would be part of—we would not be part of anything else, because it wouldn’t be Christian, and it wouldn’t be Christ-like. So if more folks would think, first of all, before you protest—which is an American right—before you have your free speech, before you do what you have to do to change things in in America, because America has been in change and revolution and growing and maturing for 200 years—folks have to first of all check their faith, look introspectively, and ask themselves, as the Lord said one time, “Are you building or are you tearing down?” If you’re not building up, then you’re tearing down. If you’re not being peaceful, if you’re not being respectful, then you’re being destructive.
I think that folks need to realize that peaceful protest ends peacefully, and when there is anarchy and chaos, it only breeds more anarchy and chaos.
You had a well-publicized speech against the rioting going on in several cities.
That speech was entirely because of that issue, of watching what was happening in Chicago, and Washington, and Portland, and other places around the country. Watching the anarchists tearing down statues, defacing public property, burning down people’s livelihood, burning down their stores, their cars, their homes—that was what initiated that speech.
That speech was no more than a continuation of some of the things that I had said in the past that led [my former party] to the decision that I couldn’t associate with them anymore. [My ouster] was about my vote on the heartbeat bill and my vote on parental choice.
Do you attribute the violence today in the riots to a removal of God from the public sphere?
I’ve said over and over and over, we have the most spiritually illiterate, the most historically illiterate generation in the history of this country. We have folks who don’t know who Jesus is, don’t know who Adam or Moses or David or Solomon are; and they don’t know who George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Mary Bethune Cookman, Dr. [George Washington] Carver, or even really who Martin Luther King is—they don’t know either, because they’ve been taught not to have allegiance to America. Not only has God been put out of the marketplace, but American history has been put out of the marketplace, the Pledge of Allegiance has been put out of the marketplace, true American history that shows the heroic value of men and women who put everything they owned, and everything they were on the line to get this country started—that has all been thrown away! Now our monuments are offensive—the Washington Monument is offensive, the Lincoln Monument is offensive, the Jefferson Memorial is offensive. Why? Because they haven’t been taught to love the country—it’s just the opposite! We have allowed foreign teachers and professors in our colleges and teachers in our schools who have no allegiance to America to change an entire generation of young people into anarchists instead of patriots. That’s what we are suffering right now.
What is the remedy for that?
One of the things we have to do is start opening our mouths, stop sitting by the wayside and allowing the atheists, the agnostics, the evolutionists, the revolutionists from other countries who want to create their own revolution in America—it’s time for folks to open their mouths and speak up. Speak up by their vote. Speak up by their activities. Speak up by the rearing of their children. Speak up by being strong in their faith. And speak up by electing men and women who fight for what we fight for and what we believe. We have sat by the side of the road, and just as the Lord said in His parabolic teaching, “While men slept…” We have slept. And all of us know the old adage, “The only thing it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.” And that’s what we’ve done—we’ve done nothing. Folks say, “Well, I’ll pray about it.” Well, the Lord prayed, but the Lord also got up from His prayers and changed the world, and that’s what we’ve got to do—we’ve got to change the world. The Lord didn’t send us to go along to get along. He didn’t send us out to say “don’t rock the boat, don’t shake the tree, don’t cause no problems, don’t make folks mad at you—the Lord sent us out to change the world, and we are not doing that. We are letting the world change us, and we need to change that before it’s too late.
It seems like we think we ought to be meek, quiet, not saying anything when challenged.
You do not help a man when you tell him he deserves something that he has not worked for.
I’ve preached this for 50 years: meekness is not weakness! Meekness is power under control. A horse with a bridle is not weak, but he is under control—that power is under control. When the Lord tells us to be meek, He isn’t telling us to be weak, He isn’t telling us to be docile, He isn’t telling us to lay down and let folks walk on us, He’s not telling us to allow folks to poison the minds of our children with propaganda, He’s not telling us to allow the greatest country that has ever been created to just be given away to those who don’t love her, who want to simply dismantle her, and who want to take all of her resources. The Lord never told us to do this. He told us to be wise as serpents, harmless as doves—meaning you need to know when to fight, and you need to know when to run. We have just been running, and we need to turn around and fight.
Politics and Entitlements
What caused you to want to enter into politics?
It’s my upbringing in general. It’s my mother and father’s activism. My great-grandparents and grandparents’ self-sufficiency—they were all business people, they owned their homes, they went to church, they worked every day. I never had a hungry day, because somebody was cooking, making biscuits, making pies, or whatever. In other words, I saw what character, what virtue, what faith was first-hand. And then I, as an adult, I see the country in a totally different direction. I see children being unraised, I see families falling apart, I men absent from the homes, I see mothers who are doing the best they can to rear the children with their meager resources, but unable to do everything that a man and a woman would be able to do. I saw politicians become corrupt—smiling, styling, and profiling instead of doing the people’s business. I watched this as I grew up, and worked in television, and preached the gospel, and at a certain point, I felt like I had to be part of the change, just as my daddy made that decision in the early 60’s. He had to be part of the change, [and] I could not just stand by the side of the road any longer.
Why did you choose the Democratic Party when you went into politics?
My grandparents and great-grandparents were Eisenhower Republicans. My parents were the first to depart, when John Kennedy ran. They were a young couple, fresh out of the military. And Kennedy won the debate, and so they voted for Kennedy. Over the years, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party were only split by style of government. Remember a lot of folks who are Republicans now used to be Democrats back in the day. So it was style of government, big government, little government. It’s not what it is today. Now the split is over social issues, the belief in God, the belief in life, the belief in the family, the belief in marriage—all of those things. So, when I ran in my district in 1995, it was an extremely conservative district. It had been a Republican district up till 1995—that was the first year it was a Democratic district. It was drawn Democratic, but there was a very good, healthy mix of Democrats and Republicans, and the majority of them were very conservative on these issues. So that was fine, but all of that started changing about 12 years ago .
Do you think the lack of entitlements brought you up into the person that you became?
The trickiness of that subject is that the media, the liberal politicians, and (in my opinion) the propagandist and the poverty pimps—excuse the expression—have styled it toward people. What they have done is wrapped up a loss of self-sufficiency, a loss of self-esteem, a loss of self-worth—they have all wrapped it up in a nice pretty package of entitlement. And that’s wrong, because one thing that characterized the people of the last generation—whether they were black or white, Native American or whatever they were—one thing that characterized them was they believed in working for what they got. They got up in the mornings, many of them in the farms or the factories, some put on white uniforms or blue uniforms or green uniforms, caught the bus, many of them in the rain, went and worked. They built nice communities, nice schools, raised their children, and a whole generation, like my generation, were the first to go to college. Why? Because they believed in working and pulling themselves up and being self-sufficient. You do not help a man when you tell him he deserves something that he has not worked for. You do not help a person when you tell them to expect someone else to take care of them if they are able to take care of themselves. The sad thing about it is this: that our elderly, our sick, our disabled, our veterans who have been injured and hurt in war, many of the children who are born with birth defects—these are the people who suffer when the money is going to able-bodied people who could get off their sorry ends and go to work every day, instead of sitting around expecting someone else to take care of them. Nobody’s saying that people who need help shouldn’t get help—and that’s what help used to be. That’s what the projects used to be. That’s what the food handouts used to be. That’s what welfare used to be. It used to be a hand up, “We will help you; we have a great country, and we will help you while you’re down so you can get up on your feet and make it on your own.” I have so many friends that those programs helped get on their feet. They eventually became homeowners, business owners, educated their children. You know why? Because they used the help, the food, the projects, whatever the government offered to stand up on their own feet, and they were proud that they didn’t need it anymore. That’s not what we have right now. Now we have a perpetuation of entitlements where we have generation after generation after generation that have never had a job. We have created a subclass, and we have created a permanent underclass with these entitlements.
Have Christians turned over their responsibility to help people to the government?
Let’s talk about something novel. What if every family took care of their own family the way it was; where if a person had a fire, lost a home, if they lost their jobs, the family came in and took care of that person? What if the church did like it used to do?
I remember our house burned down when I was in third grade, and the church surrounded us with love. They brought us clothes and food, and they helped my parents get back on their feet while the house was being rebuilt. They brought furniture, the women made curtains—it was wonderful! What if we went back to the family of the church and the natural family that God gave us?
Because of the breakdown of the family—both in the church and in the home—we see folks out there with no safety net, no teaching, no upbringing, no counseling, no religion, no faith—they’re lost. The walking wounded. If the church would go back to the preaching of the gospel, the way the Lord said—the Lord told the folks to sit down, He fed them, and then He taught them. In His teaching, He taught them how to love themselves—He said “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.” He taught them to love themselves, in other words, I will help you. If you’re sick, I will heal you. If you’re ignorant, I will teach you. And when I’m finished, you get up and take care of yourselves.
And I hate to prolong this, but remember when the Lord protected the woman who was caught in sin? She had a death sentence; in a few minutes they were going to bludgeon her body with stones, and she was going to die that day, because of her own sin—caught in the very act. Jesus saved her life, and then said, “I don’t condemn you.” But the words he said at the end of this are often forgotten from some of our contemporary teachers. Jesus said, “Go and sin no more.” In other words, You go change your life. Don’t let me find you in this position again.
What if we helped people, taught people, strengthened people, encouraged people, gave them skills, and taught them how to fish—what if we did this and said, “we don’t want to see you in this position again,” and actually gave the tough love that the Lord gave?
What do you think brought the changes in social policies within your old party?
I think what brought it on was what was happening with the national issues. With the legalization of abortion in 1973—that sent a signal throughout the country that America was certainly not the same place anymore. I remember my mother campaigning against abortion until her death in 1970, when I was a freshman at Freed-Hardeman College. I remember some of the things they were saying about abortion. I remember learning how Planned Parenthood started, who the people were that started it, and what was behind them starting Planned Parenthood. I learned all this stuff in the late 60s and in the 70s. So when abortion was approved in 1973, that signaled that America was gradually changing, right then and right there. Twenty years before, or let’s say 1963, in spite of all the turmoil that might have been going on in the country, when MLK made his speech in Washington in 1963, I guarantee you the majority of the people—black and white—would never have thought that ten years from now, we would be killing the unborn. I guarantee the majority of them never would have thought that would happen. But it did happen ten years after that speech, in 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States of America took away the constitutional right of life from the unborn. And now millions and millions and millions and millions of babies have suffered for it. Because of this, we have categorically changed the culture and the faith and the religion and the character of this country to where now, it’s all about whatever we want. It’s not about what the Bible says, it’s not about what’s right, it’s not what faith dictates, it’s just whatever we can get the majority of the vote for. That’s why we have that, we have the desecration of marriage, we have the killing of children, and the disrespect for parenthood and the home, and our aged and the veterans because of it.
Christians as Politicians
Do you think more Christians ought to serve in public office?
Oh, I absolutely do. Especially now. There was a time when you had the Dwight D. Eisenhowers, and you had men of character, the Ronald Reagans, the Jimmy Carters—whether you agree with them, Republican or Democrat, whether you agreed with them on everything or not, you knew they were good men who loved the Lord, who loved the country, and you knew they were going to do their best. That’s not what we see now. We see politics turning into the biggest racket in town, and the racketeers are those who run for office, the propagandists who feed people what they want to hear, not what they should be told.
Christians need to take a long look—in my opinion, of course—take a long look at Ephesians chapter 6, when the Apostle Paul was saying to the church at Ephesus, in the middle of the Roman Empire, with all that the Caesars and others were doing—Paul said fighting people, “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” What was Paul’s solution? Stand! Somebody needs to stand in the legislatures. Somebody needs to stand on the board of education when they’re trying to push these books and all of this rotten education upon our children. Somebody needs to stand in the Congress, stand in the Senate, when it’s time to put people on the Supreme Court who will make a decision based not on what is popular, but on what is right. Yes, I think Christians need to stand wherever the Lord deploys us so that we can fight the fight that we’ve got to fight. The Lord wasn’t killed at church. The Lord was killed on a garbage heap on the outside of Jerusalem as a political obstructionist by a Roman politician and a Jewish politician. Why? Because He stood against their politics, and for that reason, they put Him to death.
If a Christian decided to run for office, how would he prepare himself mentally and spiritually for that, and what are some dangers he would need to look out for as he is running and then serving?
First of all you got to prepare your mind, meaning, you’ve got to be a Christian. If you’re not a Christian, don’t do it. You got to be someone who has a fortified faith that is rooted and grounded. A tree is rooted, a building is grounded, and neither one of them are shaken very easily. A Christian who has a faith that is going to lead them, that’s going to give them sight, that’s going to give them vision, that when it is time to sit down and make the tough votes, you can decide between character and popularity. And those are hard decisions. I’m not going to sit here and tell you that they’re not, but I had to make decisions on voting for the heartbeat bill, I had to make decisions on voting for education that gave parents the right to educate their children as they see fit. I understood the implications, I understood the consequences. I knew that the very next day I would be called everything but a child of God in the newspaper, on radio, on billboards, or wherever they could stick my name with something negative—and that’s exactly what they did. But I was ready for it. I was ready for it, not because of my strength, but I was ready for it because of the strength of the Lord. Because He fortified me to know what is really important, and what is really lasting.
I encourage young people to educate themselves, know what a great country this is, understand, don’t listen to the folks that are trying to teach you a changed history. They’re revisionists who want to make our country something that it is not. I was talking to someone the other day, a teacher, who said “Well you know, Christopher Columbus was this, that, and the other.” I said, “Ma’am, in 1492, if my memory serves me right, when Christopher Columbus sailed and found that new land, there wasn’t a democracy on planet earth—no such thing as democracy. America created this democracy. They created the one-man, one-vote, everybody-can-speak, free-speech, right-to-religion, right-to-have-your-doors-locked, right-to-carry-your-weapon system—America created this! So when the revisionists want to tell you how sorry America is, we need to go back 300 years—go back 250 years—and you won’t find anything on the planet earth like America. What’s the relevance? It’s worth fighting for.
I was like a lot of folks. I was ready to throw up my hands and say, “You know what, it’s not worth saving. It’s too far gone. I’m really tired of these crooks and politicians and liars and propagandists.” I was in that boat, brother, and you know what God did? He put a grandchild in my hands. And when that grandchild wrapped her little hand around my finger, I went back to the day that my first child and my second child [were born], and the energy I had about giving them a life, and I said, “My grandchild deserves the same thing that I had and my children had—I gotta fight for this.” And I wish more grandparents and big sisters and big brothers and uncles and other family members decided, “You know what, the children have a right to a good country. We need to fight for this country or we’re going to lose it.”
What dangers do elected Christians face?
You have to make sure you don’t sell out. It’s takes a lot of money to run for office. When people send me money, I have a pretty good war chest. You know why I have one? Because first of all I lay it back. I have learned from the church to lay by in store. At the same time, I war a good warfare, so people send money—[people] who I have fought on the floor, because they know I fight with integrity. They know what I’m fighting for. So don’t be a sellout. There are a lot of folks who want you to sell your principles, to sell your virtue, sell your morality, sell your faith. They want you to sell out. And if you don’t know who you are, what you are, and whose you are, that temptation will be there. They know one thing, they can send anything they want to, I’m going to put it in the bank, and use it to get reelected so I can come back and fight you again. My vote is going to stay the same. My character is going to stay the same. If I fought against your bill in 2019, I’m going to fight against it in 2020. It doesn’t matter what you send. So people have got to have a resolute, rock-solid understanding of who they are, and what they intend to be, whatever the changes [around them] are.
Another thing is, you have got to have some tough skin. I’ve had billboards put up with my face on it, with curse words, big electronic billboards with curse words and my face on it. I’ve had mail-outs, nasty mail-outs, one with me on one side and President Trump on the other. And at that particular time, I had not even met President Trump. “DeBerry and Donald: Too Conservative, Too Dangerous.” And they sent that out all over my district. I’ve had all types of attacks on radio. I’ve been called an “Uncle Tom,” or “Stepin Fetchit.” I’ve been called all those things on the radio. But you know what, each time, when I don’t flinch, don’t change, don’t alter, don’t capitulate, don’t compromise, my people reelect me and send me right back up there to continue to stand. That’s what they’ve done thirteen times, regardless of what they’ve called me or said.
So I say to young people, have a tough skin. Know who you are. Because right always wins. Light always overcomes darkness. And God has already promised, Jesus has already promised, “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me.” I lift up Christ in my life, in my politics, and wherever I am, and they’ve got to do the same.
Choosing a Candidate
What do you feel a Christian should focus on when choosing a political candidate? (And you can pass if you want to on this)
Oh I’m not going to pass on that. What we have allowed the American media to do is bombard us with personality. “Oh, you don’t like this person, do you. You don’t like the way they talk. You don’t like the way they dress. You don’t like their hair. You don’t like their mouth. You don’t like their wife. You don’t like their children.” We have allowed the American media to make these [elections] issues of personality instead of issues of principles and platform. What I advise a Christian to do is remember what God has commanded: Don’t allow yourself to be part of another man’s sin.
First of all, we know that we’re not electing saints. Many times, they’re not even members of the church—we know that. But at the same time, the Lord commanded us “Judge a tree by the fruit it bears.” What’s the fruit when you look at a political office and a political candidate? The fruit it not how well they speak or dress or look. The fruit is the platform. What’s the platform they’re standing on? Are they for abortion or against it? Are they for the biblical standard of marriage or against it? Are they for parental responsibility in the home, parental choice, or against it? Are they for a strong military? Are they for First-Amendment rights? Are they for Second-Amendment rights? Look at the platform—that’s all you can do. We aren’t electing men to be elders of the church, we know there’s a totally different standard there. But when you come to politics, the Lord let us know, in Romans chapter 13, “I’m involved, and there is no authority that I do not ordain.” So what God is saying is, as a godly person, look at that platform and decide who you want to run your country. Because God has commanded us—He has commanded us—you go on and elect the fool if you want to, but every foolish law they pass, you’ve got to follow it.
Is this the reason you were…not retained…in your former party?
Oh absolutely. I don’t represent them anymore. They kicked me out because I don’t represent them. They said it very plainly. They had a Zoom call in the middle of a pandemic, with 24-hours’ notice that they were going to talk to me about throwing me out of the party, a 26-year veteran with a good record, with good rapport on both sides of the aisle—they decided they didn’t want me associated with their party anymore. That was their decision. It wasn’t based on I’m a wretched, no good person, or that I’ve done something that was crooked or slanderous, it was because they said, and I quote, I “don’t uphold the virtues of the Democratic Party anymore, i.e. abortion, and other social issues.” So therefore, I am running as an independent because of that.
Race in the Church
Getting away from political topics…
In some cities, there are both black and white congregations, and (in what experience I’ve had), it is often the case that the white congregations have no idea when the black congregations have an event (gospel meetings, singings, etc.), and vice-versa. I’m sure you would agree that this shouldn’t be the case. What can we, who all agree we are one body, do to bridge this racial divide that sometimes makes it feel like we have two different brotherhoods?
My answer is probably going to sound rather strange after the narrative you just gave—and I agree with you wholeheartedly on the things you said: I think we need to continue to do what we’re doing. In other words, we are opening up doors—maybe not as fast as some folks would want—but we are opening up our doors. When people visit us, they are welcome. When folks come to Coleman Avenue [church of Christ, in Memphis], whether they’re black, white, red, yellow, or polka-dot, they are welcomed with open arms and loved, and they are treated well, and they leave and say “I had the best time I’ve ever had.” You know, they may not come back for a while; they may just have been passing through, but we open our doors.
Where we were in America, we were separate; we closed our doors, we made it law, we made it legal, we had two separate societies because the law said so. When we changed the rules, the laws, the morays, open the doors, build the bridges, open our arms and say “You’re welcome,” then you just have to let what happens happen. We integrated the schools in Crockett County in 1968. It was one of the best experiences I’ve ever had. Now, just my family, just us, one black family, went to that integrated school for the first time in that entire county. After we went, the next year I think five or ten other black kids came. Then the next year maybe fifteen or twenty. When I go up there now, they have a whole new consolidated school—both of the segregated schools are no more. I think one of them may be an elementary school, and the other one may be an adult class school. But the fact of the matter is, once the doors were opened, people of right mind and faith welcomed each other, and the natural progression of integration happened.
The worst thing we did in America was force bussing. That was the worst thing we could have done. Instead of simply removing the laws, saying, “You can go to whatever school you want to go to, you can be educated wherever you want”—and guess what, people of like faith, of like desires, of like economic means, logistics—the schools would have been naturally integrated, and they would have been in a lot better shape than they were [by] throwing kids on busses, riding them out to the end of town, dumping them out, and making them lose all their culture, and all their background, and all their history.
So what do I think the church ought to do? People need to be Christians. They need to be Christians. If you send an invitation to one congregation, send it to all congregations [in your area]—black or white. Send them and let them know they’re welcome. If they didn’t come, you can say, “We sent you an invitation. We’re looking for you.” Invite preachers over. “Can your preacher come and preach for us so we can get to know you? I’ll go to your church so you can get to know me.” Just act like Christians. And if we did that, that would be something that hopefully our children won’t be talking about these same issues that we’ve been talking about for fifty years.
I know some who don’t like the black preaching and worship style, and balk when anyone even comes close to it. On the other side, I know a black preacher who wanted his youth to visit a white congregation so they would understand that just because a congregation worships or sings differently doesn’t mean they aren’t Christians.
It goes both ways. I heard in the 1970s from many so-called “elite preachers” that there was a white theology and a black theology. There is a way white people sing, and there’s a way black people sing. There’s a way that black preachers preach and a way that white preachers preach—I heard all this from black people, from black preachers, from black churches, from black elders and deacons. “There’s just a difference, there’s a cultural difference, and we prefer this style.” That’s the way it is.
The problem is it’s been styled as just one-sided. That the church is not integrated because white people don’t want black people to come into their churches. Well, that’s equally the other side. So, the churches have not been integrated because both sides have become comfortable with their culture, with their way of doing things, their way of singing, their way of preaching. But at the end of the day, all of us have got to preach Christ and Him crucified. All of us have got to let brotherly love continue. All of us have got to be forbearing, longsuffering, and love our brethren. You can’t get around it. You can’t build walls where the Lord built bridges, and still claim to be Christ-like and Christian. So all of us, black white, red, yellow, polka-dot, pin-striped, whoever we are, we’ve got to do an introspective examination of ourselves, and ask: Am I being what the Lord wants me to be, for the betterment and the strength of the Kingdom? Because right now, the church of Christ is shrinking. We’re the last man standing. Everybody else already sold out. They sold out to the abortionists, they’ve already sold out to women in positions that are against the Scriptures [elders, preachers, etc.], they’ve already sold out to the destruction of marriage, the removal of parental responsibility. The majority of these churches have already sold out. The church of Christ is the last man standing—and if we don’t stand together, then they’re going to pick us apart and tear us down. The one thing the apostles preached over and over and over before they were all martyred and died, with the exception of John (but John preached it too), was unity. “Let there be no division among you.” And when there is division among us, we set ourselves up for the devil to destroy us.
We have had a “Round Robin” gospel meeting, with a different congregation hosting each evening, both white and black congregations.
That’s the way it ought to be. I do more gospel meetings at what we have deemed as “White congregations”—I’ve gone places that were known as the hotbeds of segregation, and prejudice, and hatred, maybe 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago, and found the absolute friendliest, most loving, kind people—and many times, I’m the only black face in the room! Why? Because of that community. I’ve gone to places where there are no black people there. If not, there’s only a handful of them. Am I supposed to say, “You know what? You don’t have any black folk in here, I’m not going to come and preach”? No sir, I go and preach the gospel, and have had some of the best experiences that I’ve ever had. Many times [it is in] farm country, and little rural churches, little up-in-the-woods churches. Folks love on you, love the gospel—cook, man, like nothing you’ve ever seen. You know, good vegetables, cornbread, and I leave there feeling refreshed. At a certain point, you don’t see black and white, all you see is Christians—that’s all you see. And that’s the way it ought to be.
You spoke about one of the main reasons America is in the shape it is in being that they’ve forgotten their history. Do you think that the church does its members a disservice by not teaching about the history of the church, especially in this country?
Oh, absolutely, absolutely. I think we need to know more about the history of the church, and we need to know more about the history of the country, because if you just go back 300 years, you find religious oppression. You still find folks able to go to church as they see fit, even with denominationalism becoming so prevalent, folks still had a religious choice. And that originated here in America. I think it is important for folks to know about their country, and to know how many things were first in America. They also need to understand the history of the church, the sacrifices that were made, the men and women who gave their life, Jesus who gave His life for us on the cross—that this thing [the church] didn’t just happen. It was planned in the mind of God. The scheme of redemption was fulfilled and perfected by our Lord’s suffering, by our God’s love, by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration—and we need to embrace it. God provides, we possess. And a lot of us are not necessarily possessing the wonderful blessing that God provided.
Do you believe there is systemic racism in America? If so, what are some examples, and how can it be changed?
We created race. In other words, when you go to the Bible, race had to do with various cultures and land, you know, you talk about the Philistines, and the Ethiopians, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, and the Danites, and the Levites—and none of those signified color, none of them did. We created color prejudice. Color prejudice is only about 500-700 years old at the best.
“Systemic racism” has been used to say that there’s a problem that can’t be solved, a breach that can’t be bridged, a break that can’t be fixed—I don’t believe that for one second. When I went to Alamo High School in 1968, there had never been a black kid in that school. Never, ever. I was the absolute first, me and my brothers and sisters. At the end of my 3 years (10th-12th grade), the principal of that school, who had never educated a black child in a formal fashion at his school, he came to me and he shook my hand. His name was Mr. Strange. And another young man named Conley said the same thing to me. He said, “Everything that I have ever thought or believed about colored children,” (that’s the term that was used at that time), “you have changed it in two years.” In essence, regardless of what that man may have thought about black children before I got there, my daddy said, “You give respect, you’ll get respect.” He said, “You carry yourself like a man.” I’ll tell you exactly what he said, he said, “You don’t scratch your head when it ain’t itching, you don’t grin when it ain’t funny, you just be a man. If you act like a man, folks will treat you like a man.” And that’s exactly what happened.
So what if folks stop scratching their head, and grinning, and lying, and using excuses like “systemic racism”?—Yes, there is racism, but it is racism whenever there are folks who choose to pre-judge a person rather than getting to know them, regardless of what color they are. If we stop doing that, we’ll end this racism, and we’ll start judging each other by the content of character, and not the color of skin.
 Stepin Fetchit was the first black actor to earn $1Million, and was a star during his heyday, but his career slowed dramatically when many black Americans began to view his persona as echoing negative stereotypes. –Editor.
In a past Bible Q&A, the question of “Are Babies Born in Sin?” was addressed. This past week, a comment was left by a reader named Joseph, disagreeing with the content of that article.
Hello Mr. Bradley, I have read your article and I was a bit taken aback by your statement that babies are born sinless. Then [at] what age [do] they become sinners? what makes them sinners anyway? if so, could you explain to me why then is the virgin birth of Jesus? I am sure you may want to reconsider and edit this article, thank you
The following was my response in the comments of that article, but because others may have the same questions, I thought I would post it here as an article of its own.
Let us examine a few things.
(1). consider Ezekiel 18, which says clearly – “The son does not inherit the sin of the father.”
Either you believe this, or you don’t. If you believe it, then the idea that babies are born in sin, somehow inheriting the sin of some forefather, is obviously wrong.
If, however, you believe that Ezekiel was wrong (even though these are God’s words to him), then you either believe he was (1) lying, and thus nothing he wrote is trustworthy, (2) mistaken, and thus nothing he wrote is trustworthy, or (3) telling the truth about what God said, but that it was God who was lying, and thus nothing Ezekiel wrote is trustworthy.
That passage in Ezekiel – even if there were no other passages to go along with it – is enough to prove that babies are not born in sin.
(2) Consider that David, who was a man after God’s own heart, said that he would see his infant son again. He said this with confidence. He said, “He shall not come to me, but I shall go to him.”
If babies are born in sin, then die in sin (which would have to be the case with all babies who die), then the only way David could see his infant son again was for David to go to hell.
Do you think, given how David is called “a man after God’s own heart,” that he would willingly reject God so he could go to hell? I really hope that the idea sounds as stupid to you as it does to me.
The only way David could have the confidence of seeing his dead son–while still being a “man after God’s own heart”–would be if he knew his son was going to be in heaven.
And the only way that is possible is if that baby was sinless.
(3) The promise of forgiveness of sins comes ONLY after repentance. This is true in the Old Testament (God never forgave unrepentant sinners), as well as the New Testament (God never forgave unrepentant sinners). The only way someone can repent is if they have the mental capability to (1) recognize their sin, and (2) make the decision to change.
I am certain you would agree that babies do not have such capability. Since babies cannot repent, only two options exist: (1) they are all eternally lost–no exceptions (for God is no respecter of persons), or (2) they are not guilty of sin.
(4) Consider the judgment verses in the New Testament. Each and every one of them speaks of a basis for judgment. Each one speaks of people being judged BASED ON THEIR OWN ACTIONS. “According to their works.” “On the deeds they have done in the body, whether they be good or evil.” “I was naked and you clothed me, etc.”
Never once in the Bible is someone told that they are being condemned because of the actions or sins of someone else. Why? Because that would be completely unfair and arbitrary–something God is not.
(5) The apostle Paul clearly states that before he knew the law, he was “alive,” that is, spiritually alive before God–he had not sinned and separated himself from God. But after he learned the law, he “died” because he sinned.
Either Paul was a liar, thus nothing he wrote can be trusted, or Paul was mistaken, thus nothing he wrote can be trusted, or God lied to him, thus nothing he wrote can be trusted, or else Paul spoke the truth, and anyone who disagrees with his statement cannot be trusted.
Either you agree with Paul that he was once “alive” prior to learning God’s word, or you believe Paul was wrong.
(6) A person becomes a sinner–when they sin. Sins done in ignorance (such as not realizing it was wrong) are always classified differently than sins done with intent. Hebrews 10:26 – “If we sin WILLFULLY…” Hebrews 9:27 – “the sins DONE IN IGNORANCE…”
Someone becomes a sinner when they (1) learn right and wrong, and (2) choose to do wrong. Babies do not know right from wrong, and thus cannot sin. – – So, from all the above, the Bible teaches that (1) each person sins when they learn right from wrong and choose to do wrong, (2) that no one can inherit sin from their father, let alone their great, great, great, great, great, etc. grandfather, Adam, (3) that babies are sinless, and will be in heaven. – – Why is there a virgin birth? Because in order for Jesus to be “God with us,” and to be “the Son of God,” then God had to be the Father. No human father could exist to bring about the Son of God. In order for it to be completely clear that God was the Father of Jesus Christ, the mother had to be a virgin–someone who had never been with a man. Thank you for writing, and I hope this gives you some more things to consider. -Bradley Cobb
This interview, conducted by Jim Mitchell, originally appeared in our magazine, The Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1 (January 2017). We hope you enjoy it!
Dr. Stafford North has been a part of Oklahoma Christian University as a teacher and administrator since 1952. Though he has stepped out of the role of full-time instructor, he is still very much involved with the university and continues to teach several classes. He has been preaching since 1948 for congregations in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Florida. Through the years, he has specialized in studies of: Evangelism, Daniel, Revelation, eschatology, church doctrine, and church leadership.
What changes have you seen in the Lord’s Church in Oklahoma over the years.
SN: I moved to Oklahoma City in 1958, when Oklahoma Christian College moved to the city from Bartlesville. Back then, there were somewhere between 10 to 15 congregations in the area, and they seemed to work well together. The church has grown a lot since then. I think that’s partly due to the influence of the university over the years. There have been a lot of students who have graduated and stayed in the area. Along with the positives, there are challenges we face. In 2003 we had 605 churches in Oklahoma with 63,581 members. That has since gone down to 566 churches, with 56,528 members. Things are changing where rural congregations have had a hard time continuing. There have also been studies indicating that not as many young people are staying with the church they grew up in. I think one of the things we need to work on is finding ways to help them stay faithful. As a whole, I think the relationship among the congregations here in Oklahoma has been positive. That’s not true everywhere else.
In terms of some of the things going on in the church generally, there are things that have developed elsewhere that have not affected us very much in Oklahoma. I counted the other day the number of churches in the states around us – OK, NM, KS, AR, TX (those states around us) – who have started using instruments. In those states, there are 36,000 churches and 36 have gone instrumental. There are two such congregations in Oklahoma, and they have not thrived with such a decision. I think that says something about Oklahoma churches wanting to be faithful to the word and it speaks well of the churches in Oklahoma. Some churches have begun to use women in more ways in worship, but I don’t know of any churches in Oklahoma where that is the case (that’s not to say that no one has done so, but that I’m not aware of any), so that trend doesn’t seem to be infiltrating Oklahoma churches either.
I think there are a lot of things that speak well of Oklahoma churches. The spirit is positive and we continue to be staying with what the Bible teaches about all of these things. I will say, though, that we don’t seem to be evangelizing as much as we ought to. There are more and more congregations who are recognizing their need to be more evangelistic and we need to do whatever we can to help them do that. That’s something at which we can all be better.
As you think over the time you’ve spent in the state, what strikes you as some of the most unusual or most humorous experiences you’ve had.
SN: Early in the history of Oklahoma Christian, back in 1955, when the college was in Bartlesville, I drove to Grove, Oklahoma to preach. It was about a 100 mile drive and I would drive over Sunday morning and drive back late Sunday night. I remember staying up late, working a musical we did titled “Songs America Sings.” It was a three act show and a big deal for the school as nearly the entire the student body (of 150 or so) was involved. After staying up late one Saturday night and driving to Grove the next morning I had, in the middle of the sermon, the kind of moment you have when you’ve been driving down the road and all of a sudden realize you’re not quite sure where you are. I had that moment during the sermon. For a moment, I didn’t know where I was and didn’t know where I was in the sermon outline. I went to sleep in my own sermon! I quickly just picked a point on the outline and started from there to finish the message. I want to be very clear that that’s the only time I’ve ever gone to sleep in my own sermon!
What makes you the most optimistic about the direction of the Lord’s church and the direction of Christian education?
SN: In the years I’ve been teaching at Oklahoma Christian, I’ve met a lot of very fine young people, who want to serve. That seems to be a characteristic of this generation and we need to capitalize on that. They go on campaigns and help with local evangelistic outreach (the Capitol Hill church of Christ is a great example of that with the medical outreach they have and the way they talk to people in line about the Gospel). The inner city work in both Oklahoma City and in Tulsa are good examples of being evangelistic in meeting the needs of others. We’ve also been blessed with a lot of great preachers here in Oklahoma throughout the years, and that has also helped strengthen the cohesion we have among the churches.
When Paul was in Athens, he saw that the city was “wholly given to idolatry” (Acts 17:16). This city had idols and shrines to every imaginable god. There were shrines to Zeus, to Hermes, to Apollo, to Dionysius, and on and on and on. But in the synagogue, Paul was arguing with the Jews for Jesus Christ—the true Son of Deity.
However, some of the pagans in the city heard what Paul was preaching, and they desired to hear more about it, because it was something new to their ears (and they longed to hear new things). But what is interesting is what they attributed to Paul. Most translations render the phrase from Acts 17:18 this way: “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign [or strange] gods.”
But did you know that the word translated “gods” in that verse is actually the word “demons”? In fact, this verse is the only instance in the entire Bible where that word is NOT translated “demon” or “demons” (or “devils,” in KJV). They apparently believed that since they didn’t already worship Him (they thought they had every god already covered by all the shrines and temples), he couldn’t be a real god—so they called Jesus a “foreign demon.”
Back in 2012, I was asked to preach a series of sermons on the book of Revelation. That turned into 48 lessons–and the Bible study adventure of a lifetime!
As I studied through the book, I discovered that most of what I had been taught about its contents was wrong. It could be understood. It did have meaning–both then and now. And so I embarked on a quest to understand it as best as possible, and to take what I learned and make it understandable to others.
Since completing that series of sermons, I have had numerous requests to put them in print, both from the members here, as well as others who have read through the material. In fact, people I don’t even know have emailed me, saying that other people (who I also have never met) told them that they needed to get my Revelation material. It is both gratifying and humbling to know that the 48 sermon outlines I put together have been so well-received. It is also a scary proposition, because while most people will say that (within certain parameters) the interpretation of Revelation doesn’t matter, I’ve seen more heated arguments over this topic than almost any other among some preachers.
Because of the continual encouragements to make this material available in a permanent format, I have been editing, reformatting, correcting, and expanding my detailed sermon outlines, and preparing them for publication. It’s not complete yet, but it is getting there–and it looks like it will be well over 450 pages by the time it is done.
Here is what others have said about this material:
I’ve studied the Bible for over fifty years, and this is the first time Revelation has ever made sense to me.–A long time Bible teacher.
I can’t believe I didn’t see this before. You’ve made it so clear and easy to understand.–An elder.
Awesome. Just awesome.–Another elder.
If you want to understand Revelation, talk to Bradley Cobb–Michael Shank
[Your] ability to rightly divide the Word of truth never ceases to amaze me. How can your points be argued, debated, refuted, discredited, minimized? They can’t be!–A well-know preacher and author.
The material you have online has been a great help to me in my studies.–A long-time preacher.
We need to get this material out in the brotherhood–it makes it so easy to understand!–Shane Otts, preacher, Judsonia church of Christ.
Peter couldn’t stay away. Both he and John had a change of heart, and turned back to follow the mob. Peter followed at a distance, while John went ahead and rejoined Jesus.2 Peter couldn’t get into the palace of the high priest on his own, so John came back out and talked to the girl who served as a doorkeeper, and convinced her to let Peter in.3 But soon afterwards, she said, “You aren’t one of this man’s disciples, are you?” And Peter said, “I’m not.”4
After a little while had passed, another girl saw Peter, and told the men around him that “This man is one of them.”5 One of those men (the others being in agreement) then made the accusation at Peter, who replied, “Man, I’m not.”6
About an hour later, a servant of the high priest who was also a relative of Malchus (whose ear Peter had cut off) confidently said, “Didn’t I see you in the garden with Him? Truly you were also with Him: for you are a Galilean, and your speech betrays you!”7 After this eyewitness accuses him, Peter denies loudly and vehemently, “Man, I don’t know what you’re saying! I don’t know the man you’re speaking of,”8 and he cursed and swore to emphasize the point9—as he lied to them.
This is all happening as Jesus is being questioned, mocked, and abused by the Sanhedrin. False witnesses all came to speak against Him10—what was Peter thinking during this time? Did he ever have to fight the urge to stand up and scream, “They’re lying!”? Peter saw Jesus being beaten, slapped, and spat upon,11 but didn’t stand up for the Lord—instead, he hurt Him further by denying Him. As Peter made his final denial, Jesus turned, momentarily ignoring the questioning and accusations He was enduring, and looked at Peter. Then the weight of what Peter had done came crashing down on him, and he remembered how bold he had been, proclaiming how he would never deny Jesus; and remembering how Jesus had foretold that he would deny Him three times—then Peter went out of the palace and wept bitterly.12
It is possible that this was the last time Peter saw Jesus alive—until after the resurrection, that is.13
-Bradley S. Cobb
1 John’s account (chapter 18) shows that Peter’s first denial took place when Jesus was being tried by Annas, while his final denial took place when Jesus was being tried by Caiaphas.
2 Luke 22:54 shows Peter followed from a distance. This is no surprise, considering he had just sliced off the ear of one of the servants of the high priest—he was curious, but also fearful for his own safety. Meanwhile, John 18:15 shows that by the time Jesus entered the palace of the high priest, John accompanied Him.
4 John 18:17. Robertson and Vincent both point out that the question is phrased in such a way that the girl expected a negative answer. Vincent gives it as “thou art not, art thou?” Luke’s account (Luke 22:55-57) shows that Peter had already sat down by the fire inside before the girl came and asked him this question.
6 Luke 22:58 shows one man making the accusation, while John 18:25 shows that there was a group of men who asked if he was one of Jesus’ disciples.
7 The first part of this quotation comes from John 18:26, while the second can be found in the other three gospel accounts: Matthew 26:73; Mark 14:70; Luke 22:59.
8 The quotation given here is an amalgamation of Luke 22:60 and Mark 14:71.
9 Matthew and Mark both mention Peter’s cursing and swearing. Some confusion exists regarding what exactly this is. Some have said that it is basically cussing—as no one who was truly a follower of Jesus would be seen publicly cussing. Others have said that these were oaths: that Peter was calling down curses on himself if he was lying, vowing to God that he was telling the truth. Either explanation shows the great lengths that Peter went to in order to convince people that he wasn’t associated with Jesus—which was far worse than Judas’ betrayal.
12 Luke 22:60-62. Luke is the only one who mentions that Jesus actually looked at Peter after the third denial. Their eyes must have met, and Jesus almost assuredly showed a look of disappointment.
13 This is the last time Peter is mentioned until after the resurrection. It is possible that he came and watched Jesus on the cross from afar, but if he did, none of the gospel writers saw fit to mention it. It’s possible that he couldn’t bear to let Jesus see him again, out of shame, and that he found the rest of the apostles and stayed with them (except for John, who was at the cross).
Kindness is one of those things that can be hard to define, but you know it when you see it. It’s being friendly. It’s smiling. It’s showing someone that you are interested in them as a person. It’s taking time to be there for them and lending a helping hand. It’s taking the time to listen to what they have to say. Not just sitting there while they’re talking, but actually listening.
Kindness is not these things:
yelling at someone.
treating them like they’re worthless.
In order to have a great marriage, a God-honoring marriage, you must be kind to your spouse. You want your spouse to be nice to you, right? You don’t want a mean husband or a cantankerous wife. So, you be the kind spouse YOU are supposed to be.
You have no right to tell your wife to be kind to you if you’re a jerk to her. And vice versa.
Some husbands ignore their wives–not paying attention to what they say, not paying attention to what they need. In short, they aren’t being kind to their wives, and they need to repent.
Kindness means you give your spouse a smile. Kindness means you stop what you’re doing and listen to her when she needs to talk. Kindness means you listen to him talk about sports, even if it’s more boring than reading stereo instructions. Again, it’s not just being quiet; it’s actually listening to them.
You have to show your spouse that you care.
Get out your steel-toed boots, because it’s toe-stomping time! Let’s notice how God put this together. Love is patient and is kind (I Corinthians 13:4). He connected these two.
When your spouse does something you don’t like, you’re supposed to be patient with them. Andyou’re supposed to be kind to them.
Do you realize what this means? This means, even when you’re mad at your husband, you don’t yell at him. You don’t scream at him. You don’t ignore him. You don’t treat him like he’s scum. You don’t make out like he’s the most horrible thing since moldy bread. You don’t decide it’s a good time to bring up all of his past mistakes.
This means when you’re upset with your wife, you don’t insult her. You don’t yell at her. You don’t throw things. You don’t berate her. You don’t say things like “you never do this,” or “you ALWAYS do that.” You don’t start bossing her around.
And—whether you’re the husband or the wife—DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT say, “If you REALLY loved me, you wouldn’t do that.” That’s an emotional attack and an insult to them, and it is NOT showing love or kindness or patience when you say it.
Instead, you treat your spouse with kindness—even when they’ve messed up.
The question now comes up, what if your spouse has stopped trying? What if your spouse has shown over a period of time WITHOUT QUESTION that he/she doesn’t care? That they think you’re unimportant? That they think you’re not worth trying for? Are you still expected to be patient and kind to them then?
And the answer is this: the Bible says to love one another. It’s a command. It doesn’t say, “Love one another so long as it’s convenient.” It doesn’t say “love one another so long as that person is trying”. It says “Love one another” PERIOD.
So, since we are commanded to love one another, we must be patient with our spouse. Since we’re commanded to love one another, we must be kind to our spouse. ALL the time, not just when it suits us.
Because, let’s be honest. Yelling and being mean isn’t going to get anyone to change.
If you want your spouse to change, I guarantee you that yelling, screaming, berating, or being mean is NOT going to get it done. But patience and kindness can. They are much more powerful than anger. “God has called us to peace. For what do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, oh man, whether you will save your wife?” (I Corinthians 7:15-16).
If you REALLY love me, you’ll be kind. Because love is kind.
Putting It Into Practice
Now if you put your boots away, get ’em back out because here is where it REALLY starts to hurt.
You’re in the middle of a head-butting session with your spouse. They’re being unreasonable. They’re being hard-headed. And you’re ready to just put them in their place, Bible-style! So, you open up your mouth and say, “Hey, the Bible says that if you love me, you’ll be kind!”
And you know that will completely fix things immediately. Your spouse will stop and look at you and with a bright sincere smile on their face say, “you’re right. I’m sorry. I should never have been fighting with you.” I hope you’ve caught the sarcasm there.
No, that’s nothing more than using your own bad attitude to attack someone else.
Instead, you need to talk to yourself (you’re the only one you can control) and say, If I really love her/him, I’ll be kind. If I really love her/him, I’ll be patient.
See, they’ll have to answer for their own attitude problems. You have to control what YOU are doing.
If you REALLY love me, you’d be patient and kind to me. That is 100% true. But you must first start with the log sticking out of your own eye and admit, “If I REALLYlove you, I’ll be patient and kind to you.”
YOU need to be the one to start. YOU need to be the one to take the first step. YOU need to be the one who shows patience and kindness—because if you don’t, it means you don’t really love them.
Love is patient. Love is kind.
Think about it. It’s worth the effort.
The home of the Cobb Six, the Cobb Kids Audio Show, and Cobb Publishing